PROPERTY VALUES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26200, 10 July 1946, Page 4

PROPERTY VALUES

SALES TO SERVICEMEN NOT UNFAIR TO VENDORS “ It is time that this bogey was laid,” said Mr A. J. H. Jeavons at a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Dunedin Returned Services' Association last night, when it was suggested thta ex-serviceme desiring to buy nomes were being made the subject of discrimination by vendors because it was thought by some that the valuations of the State Advances Corporation were too low, and were unfair to property vendors. Mr Jeavons said that a continuance of the rumours was causing unwarranted hardship among ex-servicemen who were at present without homes, and the main difficulty was to dismiss from the public mind the mistaken impression that the Government valuations favoured the exserviceman purchaser. “Anyone has the right to obtain a check ’ valuation by an independent valuer, and if this proves to be higher than that submitted by the officers of the Valuation Department of the State Advances Corporation, it is invariably accepted,” Mr Jeavons added. The subject was introduced by Mr K. W. Stewart, who reported that he had interviewed officers of the State Advances Corporation while investigating an allegation by a member that the value of houses sold to returned servicemen through the Land Sales Court would be lower than if they had been sold to other civilians. The man who had lodged the complaint had contended that this belief had increased ms difficulty in buying a house. Mr Stewart said he had found that the valuations of properties sold to exservicemen were referred to the Slata Advances Corporation. Their estimates were based on the figures of the Institute of Valuers, and were not low. If there was a great variation between the valuation and the purchase price, a second valuation was made by the Crown, and a dissatisfied vendor could always apply for a “ check ” valuation. If the vendor was still not satisfied, he could claim a hearing by the Land Sales Court. There had been only three hearings this year, which indicated that vendors mainly were satisfied, and that values were consistent. The officers interviewed, Mr Stewart said, had been emphatic that there was no discrimination against servicemen. Mr Stewart said that further inouiries had lent some support to allegations that one or two land agents advised their clients not to sell to returned men. It was felt that this attitude might be more widespread than was at first thought, and might provide an explanation of the alleged unwillingness of vendors to sell to returned men.